On November 1, 2012 USPA Membership will have the opportunity to provide an opinion on the subject of standardized wingsuit training via USPA. Your opportunity to provide input will be included in the USPA Board of Directors Election ballot.

When I read the mission of the USPA, it does not mention advanced training as a function of the USPA.

The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a voluntary membership organization of individuals who enjoy and support the sport of skydiving. The association is incorporated in New York and follows the constitution and by-laws contained in the USPA Governance Manual. The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs.

The USPA has already established minimum safety recommendations for wingsuiting, just as they do for every other discipline. The recommendations and wingsuit FJC outline are in section 6-9 of the SIM. What makes wingsuiting so different that users can't read the SIM and the instruction manual that comes with the suit, as well as the warning labels?

I believe USPA resources would be better used by focusing on the only part of skydiving we all do: Fly and land a parachute safely. We have enough ratings and requirements already.

Adding another rating will only raise the price of general membership and tax an already overburdened system. I know your document says it won't, but it will increase work load, so prices will increase.

If USPA does not believe that a canopy coach/instructor rating should exist (something 100% of the membership uses, and something that causes most of our fatalities), and left that for each individual dz to mandate, what would make wingsuiting a better candidate for a new rating?

As a serious question..What percentage of active skydivers jump wingsuits? (and where do those numbers come from?)

and another...Are the number of wingsuit incidents/problems so pervasive that it is more important to create a wingsuit instructor over a canopy instructor?

I know you aren't arguing validity or qualifications of one rating over the other, I'm just wondering.

Well there are two options right now for DZO's, insure your plane or not and risk all you have when a tail strike happens. The one major company willing to ensure jump planes is saying no more wingsuiting from side exit A/C.

Having a system in place (and enforcing it, USPA'a down fall) might keep wingsuiting available to all. Soon it iwll be for tailgates and "rebels" only.

If the membership votes yes, then do we also have a say in the content of the standardization? What if a WSer agrees to the idea of standardization but does not like the current proposal? Are these separate issues...or is the current proposal simply going to be adopted if the membership agrees to "standardize"?

I think your document is very heavy on tail strike material, and has a very unfortunate political feel to it like you're trying to appeal to "single-issue voters." I say unfortunate because preventing wingsuit tail strikes is a noble cause. If the extent of standardization you wished to have enforced was limited to how to exit an aircraft and, perhaps, flight plans/airspace usage, then I doubt many people would take issue with the concept. I also think that those are the extent to which wingsuiting is "special" (i.e. potentially warranting additional ratings) from other advanced deciplines and to which the FAA and insurance companies take special interest in winguiting.

So, if your suggested standardization is limited in scope I would recommend drawing more attention to that in your campaign. If you have other things you'd like to include, I would recommend being more clear about that as well. The document, as it stands, does not adequately inform anyone's decision.

While USPA's mission does not specifically say "advanced training," it does not specifically disclude it, either. Nor does it specifically mention "first-time skydivers." The mission statement doesn't say anything about Hertz car rental discounts, yet USPA provides for it. Training is training. Whether it's advanced or not. And "training" is part of the mission, isn't it?

USPA is the *only* major skydiving body that does not have requisite wingsuit training standards.

Is there any other discipline that has generated an insurance company threat letter? What other discipline that can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?. Additionally, all forms of skydiving use essentially the same equipment excepting Tandems and Wingsuits.

What other discipline has demonstrated an increasing number of tailstrikes, that in the worst case may drop an aircraft onto a home or business? Faced with rising insurance cost, no assurance of skill, training, and knowledge, could possibly inspire a DZO to continue to allow wingsuiting? Several DZ's have now banned or severely regulated wingsuiting. This isn't a beneficial trend in the sport, IMO.

Most every person on the board has realized error in the response to canopy issues, and most feel that error began 15 years ago. This is our chance to prevent wingsuiting from becoming another canopy issue. We can be ahead of the curve and not play "catch-up" like we are with canopy incidents.

How many pre-BSR deaths were there of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? At least 5 we can prove, nearly double that in related incidents. How many post BSR deaths of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? Zero.

The excellent and oft-asked question from an earlier post is responded to in an FAQ about the standardized training proposal.

For some reason, dropzone.com doesn't always cooperate with the Gdoc links, apologies if you'll need to copy/paste.

In 2010, USPA generated a poll, sent out to the general membership. This online poll produced a result of 65% of all respondents in favor of a required, standardized training. In 2012, USPA sent out a request for responses to this topic, sent over Twitter, Facebook (several pages) personal emails, and here on Dropzone.com. Greater than 80% of respondents have asked for standardized instruction, administered by USPA.

There is no cost to USPA for these materials, the proposal, and there are no additional costs to develop the system as it's been tested for 5 years in development, 3 years in actual implementation. The safety record of 600 test cases is demonstrable both by numerous DZO's and other documentation.

In short, the proposal merely asks that USPA adopt a required FFC using the same syllabus provided when I submitted a proposal to change SIM Sec 6.2 into a new section now seen as Sec 6.9, with all aspects of a proper FFC included. It's deplorable that this has become a tailstrike conversation. At the same time, the industry now has a different perspective and contributor to the conversation than it had 30 days ago.

It would be a sad day in skydiving if the only exit points for wingsuiters was a cliff. Even in BASE, there are regulations being proposed and insurance required at certain exit points. It's not just a skydiving issue.

If the membership votes yes, then do we also have a say in the content of the standardization? What if a WSer agrees to the idea of standardization but does not like the current proposal? Are these separate issues...or is the current proposal simply going to be adopted if the membership agrees to "standardize"?

Sorry to be a bother...but I want to make sure this question is answered, since the answer to this question should determine exactly HOW the question is delivered to general membership.

Like all things adopted by USPA, it can be adjusted as need be. I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at, not the personal bias points we are seeing. Wingsuiting will die in the US if the Insurance Co's don't insure the A/C that allow it. The FAA is watching too, we have heard rumor of GA Pilots complaining that the WS'rs are flying out side the DZ's NOTAM'd radios.

So fist things first, lets get some thing in place to keep WSing. Then continue to adjust it as things advance.

But as we, the 30,000 USPA members, have shown, we can't even get our act together for simple things like an "A" license card.

While USPA's mission does not specifically say "advanced training," it does not specifically disclude exclude it, either. Nor does it specifically mention "first-time skydivers." The mission statement doesn't say anything about Hertz car rental discounts, yet USPA provides for it. Training is training. Whether it's advanced or not. And "training" is part of the mission, isn't it?

USPA is the *only* major skydiving body that does not have requisite wingsuit training standards.

Is there any other discipline that has generated an insurance company threat letter? What other discipline that can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?. Additionally, all forms of skydiving use essentially the same equipment excepting Tandems and Wingsuits.

What other discipline has demonstrated an increasing number of tailstrikes, that in the worst case may drop an aircraft onto a home or business? Faced with rising insurance cost, no assurance of skill, training, and knowledge, could possibly inspire a DZO to continue to allow wingsuiting? Several DZ's have now banned or severely regulated wingsuiting. This isn't a beneficial trend in the sport, IMO.

Most every person on the board has realized error in the response to canopy issues, and most feel that error began 15 years ago. This is our chance to prevent wingsuiting from becoming another canopy issue. We can be ahead of the curve and not play "catch-up" like we are with canopy incidents.

How many pre-BSR deaths were there of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? At least 5 we can prove, nearly double that in related incidents. How many post BSR deaths of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? Zero.

The excellent and oft-asked question from an earlier post is responded to in an FAQ about the standardized training proposal.

For some reason, dropzone.com doesn't always cooperate with the Gdoc links, apologies if you'll need to copy/paste.

In 2010, USPA generated a poll, sent out to the general membership. This online poll produced a result of 65% of all respondents in favor of a required, standardized training. In 2012, USPA sent out a request for responses to this topic, sent over Twitter, Facebook (several pages) personal emails, and here on Dropzone.com. Greater than 80% of respondents have asked for standardized instruction, administered by USPA.

There is no cost to USPA for these materials, the proposal, and there are no additional costs to develop the system as it's been tested for 5 years in development, 3 years in actual implementation. The safety record of 600 test cases is demonstrable both by numerous DZO's and other documentation.

In short, the proposal merely asks that USPA adopt a required FFC using the same syllabus provided when I submitted a proposal to change SIM Sec 6.2 into a new section now seen as Sec 6.9, with all aspects of a proper FFC included. It's deplorable that this has become a tailstrike conversation. At the same time, the industry now has a different perspective and contributor to the conversation than it had 30 days ago.

It would be a sad day in skydiving if the only exit points for wingsuiters was a cliff. Even in BASE, there are regulations being proposed and insurance required at certain exit points. It's not just a skydiving issue.

Proposal Promoter - 20

Straw men - 0

The list of unsupportable, unprovable and irrelevant arguments with which you promote your proposal would be amusing if it didn't represent such a potential danger to the sport in general.

One bottom line: As per floormonkey's query, as soon as an exception is made for wingsuiting, then GUESS WHAT, FOLKS? Any discipline without an equivalent "instructor rating" becomes lawyer food.

Get a clue, people. There is a small minority of people who stand to benefit from this "instructor rating" that is at complete variance with everything USPA has done with regard to sport parachuting instruction during its entire existence.

It rejects the private market solution which has proven to work across all of these other disciplines in favor of "crony capitalism" that forces people to purchase the services of "rated instructors" who are "anointed" (as the good perfesser Kallend so elegantly stated) by the association.

Those who intone that we "must" do this because the insurance companies won't insure our airplanes otherwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the parachuting public.

Another bottom line: The insurance companies do NOT care about a USPA-sanctioned rating system; they only want people to quit hitting the tails of the airplanes they insure. Period. Full stop.

And they want it done now, not on the the months-long and/or even years-long event horizon of a "standardized wingsuit instructor rating" program.

And nothing about a wingsuit "instructor rating" speaks directly to the insurance company's concern except as a selling-point subset of a larger "solution" to a manufactured problem. It's all a smokescreen for a select few who hope to be the "anointed ones" at the expense of the rest of the sport.

Seriously, all of you who are involved in disciplines other than wingsuiting -- guess what's going to happen to the liability environment when there is a USPA-sanctioned, discipline-specific "instructor rating" for one discipline but not the others?

This is Politics and Liability 101, people, and all of you non-wingsuiters who support this USPA-forced "wingsuit instructor rating" are just cutting your own throats.

This whole thing is based upon an utterly bogus premise -- that somehow wingsuiting is "different" and "more dangerous" than other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

It is not, and everyone who says it is does not know the history of parachuting, never mind basic physics.

When people first started doing RW (aka "formation skydiving") it was frequently condemned as dangerous and foolhardy and a threat to jump aircraft.

Ditto for CRW, about which people wailed and gnashed their teeth because "what other discipline can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes 9 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes 12 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?"

And when freeflying started THAT was a threat because of the higher speeds were incompatible and therefore dangerous to other freefallers.

Etc etc ad nauseam.

But guess what? We figured it out, didn't we? And all without imposing USPA-mandated sub-discipline "instructor ratings" that make the USPA bureaucracy proliferate and create endless liability permutations of which lawyers can take advantage.

And then we come to the Great Canopy Debate (biiig straw man that), wherein the bureaucratic inertia of the training system we already have prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to that issue -- when canopy technology and performance outstripped a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills.

The AFF system is in fact the primary reason the canopy thing got out of hand for so long because the entrenched AFF bureaucracy resisted the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute.

This is FACT, not rhetorical supposition based upon unsupported and unprovable straw man arguments.

Moreover and in many ways more importantly, the bureaucracy proliferation that will start but not end with "standardized wingsuit training" will literally strangle the sport because, you know, like, dudes and dudettes, why the F did we start skydiving in the first place?

For the freedom of it, the thrill of it, the adventure of it all -- not to be told at each and every incremental step of the way what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and only by those "anointed ones" who ride herd on us.

The "revamped" training system is bad enough. Add this ridiculous proposition to it and watch the sport slowly die because you will drive away the very people who are most attracted to its essential nature.

So please, instead of mindlessly accepting the feel-good premise of "standardized instruction," THINK IT THROUGH and consider all of the ramifications.

As soon as you do, things will start looking much more clear.

44

P.S. For the record, I have no problem with any of the private-sector wingsuit training operations in effect right now, to include the one the Proposal Promoter developed at Elsinore. In fact, I wholeheartedly support it and its predecessors and progeny, just as I do all the private-sector, non-USPA-dictated RW, VRW, CRW, FF, demo and other sub-discipline schools out there.

For the record also, I recognize and appreciate both the volume and quality of work the Proposal Promoter has done in developing and advancing wingsuiting training. I just wish he'd leave off with trying to force-feed it to everyone in alliance with the USPA and let the marketplace respond to the issue the way it does to all of the other subdisciplines.

Wingsuiting will die in the US if the Insurance Co's don't insure the A/C that allow it.

Thinking that the USPA creating a program will make the insurance companies happy is flawed. The insurance companies only care about one thing and one thing only.... Protecting their bottom line. It will take a track record of proven performance to make the issue dead to the insurance agencies. This can happen with or without a USPA created program.

Quote:

The FAA is watching too, we have heard rumor of GA Pilots complaining that the WS'rs are flying out side the DZ's NOTAM'd radios.

And this issue is not even brought up in this new rating program.

Quote:

So fist things first, lets get some thing in place to keep WSing. Then continue to adjust it as things advance.

This can be done without creating an entire new program at the USPA.

Quote:

But as we, the 30,000 USPA members, have shown, we can't even get our act together for simple things like an "A" license card.

And that is the primary reason why the USPA should NOT get involved with WS instruction. The USPA does not even correctly handle its current responsibilities.

1. The USPA has a terrible track record of creating any program. 2. WS is such a small aspect of the sport that other much larger issues still exist... Canopy flight collisions for example (they have killed FAR more than any WS issue).

If someone like WickedWS, or DSE wanted to create a private program like SDU to certify WS instructors, it would have the same actual benefit as the USPA doing it and it would actually be run by experts in the subject matter.

The USPA has a terrible track record of creating programs. * AFF was banned till Ken Colman did it anyway. After it was shown to work the USPA adopted it.

* Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. The USPA later adopted it.

* Tandem progression was ignored by the USPA till several DZ's were readying doing it. Then the USPA adopted it.

* SDU created a coaching program. Then the USPA pretty much adopted it.

* Windtunnel training is still pretty much ignored by the USPA.

And the simple fact is that WS is such a small percentage of members of the USPA that the USPA could save more lives by focusing on canopy related deaths.

Wingsuiting will die in the US if the Insurance Co's don't insure the A/C that allow it.

Thinking that the USPA creating a program will make the insurance companies happy is flawed. The insurance companies only care about one thing and one thing only.... Protecting their bottom line. It will take a track record of proven performance to make the issue dead to the insurance agencies. This can happen with or without a USPA created program.

Quote:

The FAA is watching too, we have heard rumor of GA Pilots complaining that the WS'rs are flying out side the DZ's NOTAM'd radios.

And this issue is not even brought up in this new rating program.

Actually, it is.

Quote:

So fist things first, lets get some thing in place to keep WSing. Then continue to adjust it as things advance.

This can be done without creating an entire new program at the USPA.

Quote:

But as we, the 30,000 USPA members, have shown, we can't even get our act together for simple things like an "A" license card.

And that is the primary reason why the USPA should NOT get involved with WS instruction. The USPA does not even correctly handle its current responsibilities.

1. The USPA has a terrible track record of creating any program. 2. WS is such a small aspect of the sport that other much larger issues still exist... Canopy flight collisions for example (they have killed FAR more than any WS issue).

If someone like WickedWS, or DSE wanted to create a private program like SDU to certify WS instructors, it would have the same actual benefit as the USPA doing it and it would actually be run by experts in the subject matter.

There are 5 of these private programs, one manufacturer program. Of those programs, only three individual holds at minimum an AFFI rating, let alone a USPA Examiner rating. The three that hold an AFFI rating are all part of a manufacturer-sponsored program. There are methods that encourage tailstrikes, methods that discourage tailstrikes. Most instructors seem to lean towards encouraging tailstrikes. But tailstrikes aren't the only issues. They just happen to get a lot of focus because of the recent insurance company letter/threat.

The USPA has a terrible track record of creating programs. * AFF was banned till Ken Colman did it anyway. After it was shown to work the USPA adopted it.

* Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. The USPA later adopted it. Yep, and it's worked well

* Tandem progression was ignored by the USPA till several DZ's were readying doing it. Then the USPA adopted it. and it's worked well

* SDU created a coaching program. Then the USPA pretty much adopted it. And it works, quite well

* Windtunnel training is still pretty much ignored by the USPA. to their peril. Learn more about what's happening at IBA tunnels

What I'm hearing you say is that USPA is very slow in responding to advances in the sport. The standardized program is not new, it's been in play for 3 years in current inception and five years in development. USPA is "creating" nothing. We're merely tasked with enforcing standardized training as presented in the SIM, SEC 6.9.

And the simple fact is that WS is such a small percentage of members of the USPA that the USPA could save more lives by focusing on canopy related deaths.

People are dying because they text while driving, so we should no longer focus on DUI's, is that it?

It might be in the syllabus of the training materials, but that has nothing to do with creating a WSE. That information can be given without creating an entire program for a very small percentage of the USPA membership.

Quote:

There are 5 of these private programs, one manufacturer program. Of those programs, only three individual holds at minimum an AFFI rating, let alone a USPA Examiner rating. The three that hold an AFFI rating are all part of a manufacturer-sponsored program. There are methods that encourage tailstrikes, methods that discourage tailstrikes. Most instructors seem to lean towards encouraging tailstrikes. But tailstrikes aren't the only issues. They just happen to get a lot of focus because of the recent insurance company letter/threat.

You have just listed the failures of those programs... You have not given a reason why the USPA has to provide yet another program.

Free market, build a better program and the world will beat a path to your door. No need to force the USPA to do it since only a very small percentage of members care about a WS.

Quote:

The USPA has a terrible track record of creating programs. * AFF was banned till Ken Colman did it anyway. After it was shown to work the USPA adopted it.

* Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. The USPA later adopted it. Yep, and it's worked well

* Tandem progression was ignored by the USPA till several DZ's were readying doing it. Then the USPA adopted it. and it's worked well

* SDU created a coaching program. Then the USPA pretty much adopted it. And it works, quite well

* Windtunnel training is still pretty much ignored by the USPA. to their peril. Learn more about what's happening at IBA tunnel

You have just proven my point. The solution is for you to create a program, prove it works, and then the USPA could adopt it if they felt it was needed.

You have shown that YOU and others should go on your own and create a program... You have not given one valid reason why the USPA should do it. And no, the insurance issue is not proof. If you had a letter from the insurance company saying, "If the USPA creates a program we will not do anything". You don't have that, you have the incorrect assumption that they care.

You could start the 'DSE wingsuit program' and if good, then the insurance program might even require it for side door aircraft.

Quote:

What I'm hearing you say is that USPA is very slow in responding to advances in the sport. The standardized program is not new, it's been in play for 3 years in current inception and five years in development. USPA is "creating" nothing. We're merely tasked with enforcing standardized training as presented in the SIM, SEC 6.9.

What I am saying is the USPA can't lead itself out of a wet paper bag if you gave it a samurai sword. They have not taken the lead on any issue, only followed the advancements of others, and even then they screw it up.

What I am saying is that as a percentage of population WS are an infinitesimal part of skydiving. The USPA has never gotten into specific methods of instruction in such areas as CRW, swooping, or camera flying.... Simply put you are trying to change the very dynamic of the organization into something it was never intended to be.

What I am saying is that you are trying to get an ineffectual organization to create a mandatory program to solve a problem that will not be solved by the program.

Quote:

People are dying because they text while driving, so we should no longer focus on DUI's, is that it?

Right now you have nothing in the way of standardization. That is a flaw, we only have one organization, another flaw. We have Wing Suit FFC "Guru's" teaching "how to strike a tail" exits, and then arguing they are doing it right.

WS'rs are gonna end their fun, or have to go take chances at DZ's who don't carry insurance, or do maintenance, or reside in the US.

So propose a BSR to state in a couple sentences (and maybe with a diagram) how one shall exit a side door aircraft with a wingsuit.

</devil's advocate>

Again, I think the instruction being proposed is largely good stuff, but this keeps coming back to the "tail strikes have got to stop" argument, and if that's what supporters want to do, then focus your solution a little better. The detail and the logistics of the standardization goes way beyond the scope of the presented problem, and that is always going to raise eyebrows.

Full disclosure btw: I only have around 50 wingsuit jumps, and all are back around '05 / '06 (at Elsinore.) Douglas has done a lot to promote wingsuiting at my home dropzone in recent years, and overall that's a good thing. Between he and Hammo, however, they've done things like outright ban XRW and ban the use of PC pouches on wingsuits (that people would use to gain familiarity if they wanted to use it for wingsuit BASE) which are decisions that I disagree with. So I recognize him as someone who does truly cares about wingsuiting, but maybe not with the same motivations I share.

>Thinking that the USPA creating a program will make the insurance >companies happy is flawed.

Agreed; that's missing a step. The thinking that DOES work is:

1) USPA creates a program, and as a result 2) tailstrikes go down, and as a result 3) insurance companies are happy.

>If someone like WickedWS, or DSE wanted to create a private program like >SDU to certify WS instructors, it would have the same actual benefit as the >USPA doing it . . .

Looking at all the shit DSE has gotten over the mere proposal (i.e. he's power hungry, he wants to rule wingsuiting etc etc) it would be even less effective than a USPA program - because people who dislike following standards will be even less inclined to do so if it's optional.

>Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. >The USPA later adopted it.

Yes. And no standardized wingsuiting instruction existed until Birdman created the WS-I rating. The USPA is now adopting it.

1) USPA creates a program, and as a result 2) tailstrikes go down, and as a result 3) insurance companies are happy

The simple fact is that the USPA does not have to be the actor here. All that is needed is a best practice to be made and the DZO's can require it if they want.

Quote:

Looking at all the shit DSE has gotten over the mere proposal (i.e. he's power hungry, he wants to rule wingsuiting etc etc) it would be even less effective than a USPA program - because people who dislike following standards will be even less inclined to do so if it's optional.

It is actually pretty simple, if you want to jump a WS at the DZO's place you will have to show up with a DSE-WS rating. This allows the DZO to make the call on how he wants to run his DZ.

Even easier is that DSE could put out instructions on how to exit an aircraft and the DZO can make that mandatory.

Quote:

Yes. And no standardized wingsuiting instruction existed until Birdman created the WS-I rating. The USPA is now adopting it.

So you going to support Kate Cooper creating a big way instructor rating system? Support Dan BC's 4 way instructor rating system?

Simple fact is that a program is not needed to prevent aircraft insurance issues... Just a best practice. The DZO's can implement it or not, and they have to deal with the insurance issues.

Simply put, it is not needed and will just be another boondoggle like the group membership program.

I would support a best practice being available. And there is no doubt DSE is experienced enough to write it. That does not mean the USPA has to create a new process.

That statement, IMHO is not an entirely fair - nor fully accurate Ron, in the real-world, statement at all. Although it certainly does at least look glamorous, and sensationalist of one for you to make.

Do I think that USPA does absolutely all things simply magnificently either, flawlessly - or heck, even well? No. That would be an equally ludicrous "broad brush" position or statement for anyone to make as well.

But are all things really such "doom & gloom" &/or that bad, or badly run & handled (and our current resultant situations, and abilities for the most part to freely actively skydive here in the United States) really all that bad?

"USPA is the begin-all and end-all evil pariah and bane to all our existences"

A pretty poor, IMO premise really, upon which to base an argument, and I would submit also - quite simply is not fully accurate, or really appropriate under the circumstances, of a statement to make.

If you were successful in getting people to agree with your position (based upon statement) that:

Quote:

The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything...

What then would you suggest? We completely deconstruct the entire infrastructure currently in place is too - that IS USPA?

Personally over all - although absolutely agreed, as would be ANY organization - is not perfect - - - I do not agree with you that USPA (with their effectiveness at staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc.) is, as this statement seems to want to position it, and have everybody believe - is necessarily all bad.

I don't know what "the" answer is to this particular matter at hand is, nor do I pretend to know.

Then you run the risk of either having to take a per DZ FFC, or a check dive at the very least.

How does a DZO know you're qualified to jump a wingie without taking out his million dollar aircraft killing yourself and all aboard?

How does anybody know that anybody won't hit the tail when jumping out of an airplane?

It's happened with people not in wingsuits.

How does anybody know that a well trained wingsuiter won't hit the tail?

That's happened too.

Spot has developed a great program and I'd advise anybody that wants to learn about wingsuit flying, coaching or instructinng to go there. I have had coaching myself from Spot and it was first rate.

I applaud his contribution to wingsuiting, and I wholly believe that he is not doing this for monitary gain.

Where I differ is in making this manditory, and it is a stretch to apply it to tail strikes. That is indeed a concern and I'd like to see it never happen again, but for the USPA to take on this level of burocracy to deal with this issue is not necessary. There is no need for me to repeat all the arguments against it, but I will say that I agree with them.

That statement, IMHO is not an entirely fair - nor fully accurate Ron, in the real-world, statement at all. Although it certainly does at least look glamorous, and sensationalist of one for you to make.

Do I think that USPA does absolutely all things simply magnificently either, flawlessly - or heck, even well? No. That would be an equally ludicrous "broad brush" position or statement for anyone to make as well.

But are all things really such "doom & gloom" &/or that bad, or badly run & handled (and our current resultant situations, and abilities for the most part to freely actively skydive here in the United States) really all that bad?

"USPA is the begin-all and end-all evil pariah and bane to all our existences"

A pretty poor, IMO premise really, upon which to base an argument, and I would submit also - quite simply is not fully accurate, or really appropriate under the circumstances, of a statement to make.

If you were successful in getting people to agree with your position (based upon statement) that:

Quote:

The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything...

What then would you suggest? We completely deconstruct the entire infrastructure currently in place is too - that IS USPA?

Personally over all - although absolutely agreed, as would be ANY organization - is not perfect - - - I do not agree with you that USPA (with their effectiveness at staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc.) is, as this statement seems to want to position it, and have everybody believe - is necessarily all bad.

I don't know what "the" answer is to this particular matter at hand is, nor do I pretend to know.

Just my .02

+ .02

To be fair to Ron, while he did paint USPA with too broad a brush, he's spot-on with his comments about "standardized wingsuit training via USPA."

I would edit his broad-brush statement to say:

"USPA has a terrible track record of running anything that's outside its scope and none of its business."

Like any bureaucracy, USPA does many things within its mandate pretty well, and you listed most of them. The problem for bureaucracies is what I call the saddle blanket-burr problem:

The horse doesn't notice how well the saddle blanket protects him from the saddle but he sure as heck notices when a burr gets under it.

So we tend not to notice the things that USPA does well; only those that it screws up.

And a lot of its screwups tend to come from taking on things that are outside its scope and/or none of its business.

Ron and I and others contend that having USPA regulate advanced training of any kind is outside of its scope and none of its business.

As BOD member Rich Winstock pointed out in the "Flock the Vote" thread, the USPA Safety and Training committee has already spent "hundreds of hours" on this issue -- and it will spend hundreds and perhaps thousands of hours more on it, all for a tiny subset of the sport parachuting population it oversees.

That makes zero sense organizationally, and even less sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.

USPA does many things well, chief among them keeping us in the air with minimal government restrictions and intrusions. It should stick to those things that it does well and that are within its scope and stay out of things that are none of its business.

That the USPA does what it is supposed to do and try to keep the govt off of our backs.... Just like the AOPA. As you put it "staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc". Instead of trying to run programs like the "USPA Championship Demo Team" the "Group Member Program" etc.

Simply put this whole issue could be fixed with a regulation or BSR about how to exit a side door plane. It does not need an entire new training program for a handful of jumpers.

Even easier, it could be fixed by someone like DSE creating a best practice and sending it to every DZO that wants it. Then the DZO can decide how he wants to run HIS DZ, and he then has to deal with HIS insurance to cover HIS planes.

I just read this entire thread and it's tremendous. Excellent point and counter-point dialogue. Most of you know me. Most of you know that I've been an instructor since I was 18 years old (I'm 49 now). I hold every wingsuit manufacturer "instructor"and "examiner" rating and I've trained more people to do this safely than I could possibly count. Personally, I don't care if USPA adopts this program. It's not going to change the way I conduct training. What I DO hope, though, is that dropzone S&TA's (like me) get off their asses and DO THEIR JOBS. It's simply not OK to let some unknown kid show up at your DZ in an Apache XRW and let him jump out of your plane without proof of training and currency. This never, ever happens at Raeford Parachute Center and it should not happen at your DZ. Formalized wingsuit instruction has been around since 1999. There are PLENTY of opportunities at boogies and PLENTY of dropzones with formal wingsuit schools where you can get proper training. There is no excuse for cutting corners. Ultimately, if the proposal passes I am to be one of the instructor examiners since I have been doing it on the "private" side since the inception of such programs. Again, though, I don't care one way or another. It's not going to affect the way I conduct my business. I've never been a "champion" skydiver, but I have ALWAYS been an instructor; that's what drives me.

I commend you for taking the time to screen unknown WS jumpers at your DZ and hope you include unknown jumpers on pocket rocket canopies.

Just curious-if the powers that be had decided you wouldn't qualify as one of the I/E's under this proposal what would your take on it then be? Would you then go take a course from one the sanctioned people? Or????

I commend you for taking the time to screen unknown WS jumpers at your DZ and hope you include unknown jumpers on pocket rocket canopies.

Just curious-if the powers that be had decided you wouldn't qualify as one of the I/E's under this proposal what would your take on it then be? Would you then go take a course from one the sanctioned people? Or????

Skydive Instruction is what I do for a living. I've been an instructor since I was 19 years old (I'm 49 now). I've been instructing wingsuiting since 2000. If this does get approved and for some odd reason I were not made a part of the initial group of examiners then I would pay for the examiner course so that I could still "legally" (assuming USPA control) continue to do what I've been doing for 13 years. It's the right thing to do if the forces that be mandate it. I'm just going to write the cost off on my taxes anyway. Then again, USPA has not mandated anything at this point.

It most emphatically did NOT win; the 2,686 "yes" votes were soundly beaten by the combined 3,342 "no" and "no opinion" votes -- the latter 1,289 of which carry as much weight in this ridiculously designed and fundamentally flawed "poll" as a "yes" or "no" vote.

Ergo, if the new BOD does not summarily poopcan this methodologically illegitimate "poll," it must absolutely weight the "no opinion" vote equally with the "no" votes and the "yes" votes -- which means:

THE MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT SUPPORT ACTION TO IMPOSE THIS ILL-ADVISED, POORLY THOUGHT-OUT INITIATIVE ON THE SPORT. PERIOD.

Seriously, beyond being methodologically illegitimate and amateurishly executed, the results of this "poll" -- which would be invalid even if the "yes" vote actually won -- show clearly and emphatically that the USPA membership either actively opposes or is indifferent to the creation of a mindless rating system that increases liability across the whole sport, reduces the fun factor, and does absolutely nothing to address the principal issues facing wingsuit skydiving in the United States.

Hopefully, the new BOD will exercise more common sense in aborting this defective baby than did its predecessor.

Not to mention this stupidity is not enforceable. Most DZ's will ignore it and then what?

Group member drop zones will lose their status? So what? That may be all it takes to drop out of the GMDZ program.

If an experienced mentor takes somebody on a jump without the new rating what then, will they be kicked out of USPA? Will the indivduals membership and ratings be revoked?

I mean what exactly are you going to do to us?

Most skydivers don't give a shit about USPA to begin with, this type of thing only drives them farther away.

USPA has one main function only and that is to defend skydivers from restrictions and protect our rights to skydive. Everything else is secondary. That is why the PCA and the later USPA were established.

My instructor told me something 32 years ago and it is still true today "Skydiving did not begin the day you started jumping"

Maybe instead of making a complex instructor program, and having pretty pictures on the front of the USPA Magazine - they should make a cover story that is more newsworthy/educational instead of travel blog about the last boogie, and have a real factual article about wingsuit safety and known risks.

I would bet a jumpticket that if the poll had a 3rd option, "should the USPA focus 2013 on wingsuit education and wingsuit safety, include new educational content in the SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques, but not implement a formal instructor program" - that item would have "won" hands down...

Maybe instead of making a complex instructor program, and having pretty pictures on the front of the USPA Magazine - they should make a cover story that is more newsworthy/educational instead of .....

It's a membership magazine! I'm guessing if YOU or any member write that article and submit it, they would happily print it.

(the following not aimed specifically at tdog) Once again, too many people wanting everything done for them. At some point you have to take the bull by the horns! But, If you choose not to be proactive, someone else will. At which point your bitching about it has no value other than to affect minor changes in the policies they implement.

>and have a real factual article about wingsuit safety and known risks.

?? There have been several of these.

>I would bet a jumpticket that if the poll had a 3rd option, "should the USPA focus >2013 on wingsuit education and wingsuit safety, include new educational content in the >SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques, >but not implement a formal instructor program" - that item would have "won" hands >down...

That sounds good too, and I'd support your efforts to do that. (Keep in mind, though, that there IS new educational content in the SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques - including a full first flight course syllabus.)

>USPA has one main function only and that is to defend skydivers from restrictions >and protect our rights to skydive.

Here is USPA's stated purpose:

====== The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs. ======

>My instructor told me something 32 years ago and it is still true today "Skydiving >did not begin the day you started jumping" I think some folks have lost sight of that.

Agreed. The sport is changing and growing all the time, and USPA is growing along with it. Some people may not like the direction the sport is going in (higher performance parachutes, wingsuits etc) and they are always free to choose another sport.

It won. Even though lots of people didn't care, the people who cared overwhelmingly supported it.

Which is fine; I'd rather that people who have no opinion or who don't care or who don't know what the question is about abstain from voting.

This is a POLL. Not even a good poll. Nothing won or lost, but I wouldn't try to say that a measure that was "approved" by 8% of USPA's total membership is a sign of membership approval. I have no problem with USPA adopting a uniform training program in the same fashion as the recomended training for rw or crw. I have no probelm with the manufacturers adopting their own training program. To implement a requirement for training and a new I and I-E structure I cannot support.

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

What it does mean is that most people who responded WOULD support it. Which is an indication of what the real world of skydiving thinks about the proposal, as opposed to Internet posters. Thus we can go two ways from here:

I've been following all of this, throughout and have heard some good pro and con arguments.

I've also heard a lot of posturing, bickering, etc... Which is normal considering we are all human (well assuming).

I have to ask Robin, and I get your point about a legitimate poll and frankly, it pisses me off as bit as well considering our organization should've utilized a professional service and the "poll" should've been executed as best as possible.

However, all that aside, I'm incredulous that only 10% of the entire membership even voted. Considering that, 90% of the organization is happy to have whatever comes there way in regards to our board, etc...

Lastly, the thing that pisses me off to no end? "No Opinion"

Seriously, how can that be counted at all? Why bother? Who gives a shit, if you have NO OPINION?

That says to me, that you shouldn't even check a box!

Hell I voted no, only because my fear that the precedent will lead to the same thing in ALL aspects of the sport.

Not because I fear having good training, etc... but because there was so much left unanswered.

However, again, I have to ask? Who gives a shit about NO OPINION?

Last but not least, what the hell? Why would that even be on the poll?

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

.

I am on record as having stated clearly and unambiguously that that the poll was meaningless back when the wording was first announced. A result either way would be meaningless because of fundamental design flaws.

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

What it does mean is that most people who responded WOULD support it. Which is an indication of what the real world of skydiving thinks about the proposal, as opposed to Internet posters. Thus we can go two ways from here:

>This is a POLL. . . . .Nothing won or lost, but I wouldn't try to say that a measure that was "approved"

True, it would be more accurate to say that the poll indicated support for it.

And it would be even more accurate to say that the poll did not indicate "majority" support for it. Approval by less than 50% of those voting and only 8% of USPA membership would seem to minmize true concern by skydivers over the need for a new rating. Also, since tailstrikes seem to be the biggest selling point, a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting the sircraft" I rating. And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must be negligent and has a liability in the death".

>a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or >since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting >the sircraft" I rating.

Well, a BSR doesn't outline anything. It's a (generally) one sentence rule that says what you must do or not do.

But if you wanted to come up with an "exiting the aircraft" I rating go for it; let's see the proposal.

>And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW >instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must >be negligent and has a liability in the death".

USPA has mandatory water training but no mandatory low turn training, and low turns are the largest cause of death in the sport. No lawsuits yet. Not much of a concern.

>a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or >since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting >the sircraft" I rating.

Well, a BSR doesn't outline anything. It's a (generally) one sentence rule that says what you must do or not do.

In reply to:

"Do not extend wings til clear of the aircraft" That should cover it

But if you wanted to come up with an "exiting the aircraft" I rating go for it; let's see the proposal.

My point is that you shouldn't have to set up a new Instructor heirarchy for every skill you need to teach.

>And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW >instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must >be negligent and has a liability in the death".

USPA has mandatory water training but no mandatory low turn training, and low turns are the largest cause of death in the sport. No lawsuits yet. Not much of a concern.

USPA does have mandatory canopy training. Most of it is done by any Instructor, the advanced portion by any S&TA approved person, no special instructor course or rating.

Please point to the mandatory low turn training. (Which is what I was talking about.)

It's part of the first jump course, as in "don't turn the canopy too low or you will die" And also covered in the landing priorities section of the first jump course. It's also cover during the student progression when they practice flat turns.

If what you're talking about is teaching people to swoop, that's another story. Since you appear to support special "I" and "I-E" rating for wingsuits, do we also need the same for swoopers??? There is a big difference between mandatory emergency training and mandatory discipline training.

>If what you're talking about is teaching people to swoop, that's another story.

Agreed. And still there has been no "someone died swooping, USPA has not developed mandatory swooping instruction, USPA does have a mandatory night jump instruction, therefore USPA must be negligent and has a liability in the death" lawsuits.

>Since you appear to support special "I" and "I-E" rating for wingsuits, do we also need >the same for swoopers?

I think the need for standardized instruction for swoopers is even greater, based on fatality stats.